From the Back Cover

Why are the events of the Gospel story, and its central character Jesus of Nazareth, not found in the New Testament epistles? Why does Paul’s divine Christ seem to have no connection to the Gospel Jesus, but closely resembles the many pagan savior gods of the time who lived only in myth? Why, given the spread of Christianity across the Roman Empire in the first century, did only one Christian community compose a story of Jesus’ life and death-the Gospel of Mark-while every other Gospel simply copied and reworked the first one? Why is every detail in the Gospel story of Jesus’ trial and crucifixion drawn from passages in the Old Testament? The answer to these and other questions surrounding the New Testament will come as a shock to those who imagine that the origins of Christianity and the figure of Jesus are securely represented by Christian tradition and the Gospels. With the arrival of the third millennium, the time has come to face the stunning realization that for the last 1900 years, Christianity has revered a founder and icon of the faith who probably never existed.

]]>https://kcbrownstone.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/book-recommendation-the-jesus-puzzle-did-christianity-begin-with-a-mythical-christ/feed/1kcbrownstoneThe Jesus PuzzleChurch Fathers: Spirit Filled Anti-Semites, Misogynists, and Racistshttps://kcbrownstone.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/church-fathers-spirit-filled-anti-semites-misogynists-and-racists/
https://kcbrownstone.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/church-fathers-spirit-filled-anti-semites-misogynists-and-racists/#respondTue, 24 Jan 2012 20:15:22 +0000http://kcbrownstone.wordpress.com/?p=1694Over the next several weeks I’ll be posting disturbing excerpts from the works of those known as Church Fathers. I wonder why this isn’t a topic of discussion in seminary? These individuals are revered by many as “godly” men. Yeah right.

If you’re not familiar with the term Church Fathers, here’s a definition:

Those persons whose views the Church considered to be foundational for the development of early Christian orthodoxy and spirituality. The time of the Fathers is classically divided into three periods: the foundational years (until the Council of Nicaea [325]); the formational period (until the Council of Chalcedon [451]); and the decline of the patristic era (in the Latin Church, until the death of Gregory the Great [604] or perhaps Isidore of Seville [636]; in the Greek Church, until the death of John of Damascus [749]). Viewed as founders of the mainline ecclesiastical tradition, the category of Fathers includes apostles, bishops, martyrs, apologists, heresiologists, theologians, and historians.

The authority of the Fathers is based upon their support of the tradition. The teaching of any specific Father which diverges from the tradition bears no particular weight unless approved by a general council. The Church accepts the unanimous agreement of the Fathers with respect to scriptural exegesis as faith without error. The balance of their combined teachings in theology and doctrine, especially when the Fathers are taken in relation to one another, is given specific consideration in matters of modern ecclesiasical debate.

I must admit that part of me is relieved to have these disturbing passages out in public. These bloody verses that insist women be punished with violent death—often for perceived or imagined sexual transgressions—are usually overlooked, downplayed, skipped over, ignored. Most people like to pretend they aren’t really in the text. Especially people who claim to take the Bible literally.

Passages like these should render biblical literalism impossible. Their existence illuminates that literalists always engage in selective literalism, choosing the passages that support the arguments they want to make. And what is the rubric for selective literalism other than convenience and the maintenance of oppressive power relationships? When faced with such verses—or even passages about keeping kosher or not being around women who are menstruating—many a literalist will argue something like “that was then and this is now,” while in the very next breath (I’m talking to you, Rick Santorum, and you, Michele Bachmann) they’ll insist that homosexuality is an abomination or that women should submit to their husbands. Why? Because it’s in the Bible.

The film could, in fact, be read as an argument against biblical literalism; a warning about the misogynist violence embedded in the biblical text…

Look at the men behind him nodding in agreement.

]]>https://kcbrownstone.wordpress.com/2012/01/12/defending-misogyny-with-the-bible-2/feed/0kcbrownstoneUnquestioning Faith: Ignorance Is Blisshttps://kcbrownstone.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/unquestioning-faith-ignorance-is-bliss/
https://kcbrownstone.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/unquestioning-faith-ignorance-is-bliss/#respondTue, 10 Jan 2012 18:09:50 +0000http://kcbrownstone.wordpress.com/?p=1648The definition of “indoctrinate” is to teach (a person or group) systematically or for a long period to accept biased ideas uncritically. Uncritical in this sense means not tending to find or call attention to errors, discrepancies, inconsistencies or questionable content.

The very essence of church services is an environment of passivity. Being exposed to a repetitive ambience of emotions and fervor leaves the mind malleable, thus making it more susceptible to indoctrination. One begins to assimilate what’s being said without actually processing it. Stimuli that produce excitable and heartfelt feelings are assumed to be the Spirit of God. An atmosphere that is euphoric captivates those present, enticing them to free themselves of mental restraint.

A passive mind conforms to anything and questions nothing when pleasure is derived. Once you’re emotionally attached to something it becomes more difficult to be objective. This makes it practically impossible to be critical and voice an opinion that’s in direct opposition to those whom one experiences impassioned ecstasy with on a weekly basis.

The continued search for an emotional high eventually leads to biblical ignorance. Many have a short attention span when it comes to serious study because they derive no sense of pleasure from it. It doesn’t provoke a warm and fuzzy feeling inside so it’s shunned. Those who want to go deeper in their studies often find themselves alone in such endeavors. Diluted teaching and prepackaged Bible studies are the norm for most congregations in order to accommodate the illiteracy and disinterest of the audience.

I’ll use the spiritual term “stronghold” to describe the indoctrination process of Christians. It’s frightening when one quenches their desire for knowledge and abandons their sense of reason in favor of playing church. The outcome is an individual who doesn’t know the historical background of the faith they profess, can’t articulate what it means to be a follower of Christ, and exhibits very little Bible knowledge. Memorized Bible verses that have become clichés among Christians masquerade as biblical literacy.

You’re invited to worship with us, but please check your brain at the door.

]]>https://kcbrownstone.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/unquestioning-faith-ignorance-is-bliss/feed/0kcbrownstoneLocked MindDon’t Blame The White Man. Blame Satan.https://kcbrownstone.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/dont-blame-the-white-man-blame-satan/
https://kcbrownstone.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/dont-blame-the-white-man-blame-satan/#commentsFri, 06 Jan 2012 23:53:39 +0000http://kcbrownstone.wordpress.com/?p=1612Personal accountability is hard to find these days. Believing in the devil has been detrimental to the African-American community as a whole. I refuse to pass on this mythical nonsense to my young children. Before, it was the white man holding a nation of millions back, now it’s Satan. Enough already with the excuses. Break this psychological bondage perpetuated generation after generation.

Each time I hear Satan blamed for something I cringe. The black church has taken the phrase, “The devil is a liar!” to another level. Effectively making this character a scapegoat for an entire race of people. One of the rules of playing church is to authenticate your faith with clichés. The enemy is attacking me. My marriage is under attack. The devil is using you. Satan doesn’t want you to hear this message, that’s why you were late getting to church today. Satan wants to prevent your financial breakthrough because he knows you’ll start praising God. The last one is often used when the speaker is encouraging the audience to “sow a seed” (i.e., give money).

Pastors of black congregations are usually quite skillful in making Satan the fall guy. In fact, when black Christians say, “Service was good today” they probably mean: “The devil was blamed for something, everyone nodded and shouted in agreement, and each of us gave a high five to someone and told them they’re coming out of whatever situation they’re in.” If you can master the art of story telling with Satan as the antagonist, then you’ll attract more people who want to play church. More folks signing up. More money coming in.

It’s not politically correct for African-Americans to publicly blame “Whitey” for the ills in their community as done in the past. Many find that term offensive and that belief outdated. Pointing an accusatory finger at Satan appears to be an acceptable way to invoke empathy from whites. Yet, it also invites apathy, underachievement, hopelessness, and self-hate within the black community. As black Christians continue to proclaim the power of Satan they do a disservice to their children by giving legitimacy to a spiritual Boogieman.

The Christian Post reported recently that megapastor Rick Warren has discerned a significant problem among American Christians: Biblical illiteracy. In the face of this, he’s launching a new Bible study called “40 Days in the Word.” In a year-end webcast he plugged the new study, insisting that “Americans are biblically illiterate. They just don’t know the Word of God… Our parents’ generation knew the Word of God pretty well. My generation knew a little bit. The next generation knows none of it.”

He may be right. Over the last several years it has become clear that American Christians know little about the Bible, and in 2010 Pew study atheists and agnostics performed better on a test of basic biblical knowledge than did Christians. It’s a problem. Christians should know more about the book they profess to love. They should not be biblically illiterate.

But there are other kinds of illiteracy. There is, for example, scientific illiteracy. It too is a problem in America. And there is evidence that it is related to religious beliefs. This is hardly surprising. When one is raised to see science as the enemy of faith; when churches actively work against science education; when a literal understanding of Genesis is a requirement for faculty at major seminaries, scientific literacy suffers.

It is easy to blame extreme anti-science people like Albert Mohler and Ken Ham for this problem, and some responsibility does fall on them.

But I suspect more moderate leaders like Warren have a lot to do with it.

To be biblically literate do you also have to understand the problems with the Bible such as questions about authorship, unresolved contradictions, and things that are shown by science to be wrong? I would think you do. Without that understanding your biblical literacy is really only Christian propaganda. This might be the case with Rick Warren. His biblical literacy might depend on one accepting the conservative Christian perspective is divinely inspired.

And DanVoj’s comment.

Warren wants people to know more about what the Bible literally says than what we should know about it.

It all comes down to control: memorizing the Bible is one thing, while analyzing it is another. Control can always be had from illiteracy. Now, Warren’s statement is the same as many other “pastors” around the country, but you don’t see them recommending a scholar like Bart Ehrman for follow-up analysis. THEY are the true analysts, and they will ultimately tell you what to think.

Bart Ehrman takes you on a journey to the ancient world and the forgery battles that have raged through the centuries. Ehrman contends that the New Testament is riddled with contradictions about the life of Jesus and his significance. He has provided compelling evidence that early Christianity was a collection of competing schools of thought and that the central doctrines we know today were the inventions of theologians living several centuries after Christ.

“I have bad breath.” (Testamints!)

“I don’t know how to bring it up.” (How about just ask, “What are your spiritual beliefs?”)

“They may ask me a question I don’t have the answer to.” (You don’t have to know all the answers. You just need to introduce them to the One who does!)

This implies that Christians have valid excuses for not evangelizing. What are they?

]]>https://kcbrownstone.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/10-lame-excuses-for-not-sharing-your-faith/feed/5kcbrownstoneWomen Should Keep Their Mouths Shut–Yes, I Said Ithttps://kcbrownstone.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/women-should-keep-their-mouths-shut-yes-i-said-it/
https://kcbrownstone.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/women-should-keep-their-mouths-shut-yes-i-said-it/#respondTue, 03 Jan 2012 19:23:02 +0000http://kcbrownstone.wordpress.com/?p=1586That’s right ladies. You should not be opening your mouth to speak during church services. Just ask Pastor Jack Schaap. Wonder what he has to say about the black church. Many women are quite vocal and physically expressive. I can imagine the private conversations this man has with his buddies brothers in Christ.